February 24, 2010  

“Two-Ages” Signaled by the Cross

I like this perspective on the cross from Torrance as he engages the idea of ‘two-ages’, and the cross as the center-point and beginning point of the next age (which we live out of); here is Torrance:

Here we have a very important element in the conception of atonement, that by his cross Jesus Christ has made a past — once for all he has put something completely behind him. On one side of the cross there is set the old Adam, the old aeon and all that belongs to them, and they will never be resurrected. ‘Old things are passed away,’ as St Paul put it, but on the other side of the cross, ‘all things are become new.’ The cross created a past, but only because it creates a new future, or a ‘better hope’ as the epistle  to the Hebrews puts it. That is what Christ has done by his redemption: opened up eschatological vista for faith in which we are already planted in Christ, and with Christ already enter through the veil into God’s presence. It is because Christ ever lives as our redeemer, our surety, our atonement, that our life is set on a wholly and eternally new basis. As such Christ is the head of all things, the head of the new age, the messianic king, to whom the whole of the world to come belongs. That is an eternal kingdom that cannot be shaken, and that is the inheritance in Christ which is freely bestowed upon us. Through Christ the forerunner, the great podeh-goel, or mighty kinsman-redeemer, the author and finisher of our faith, we enter alreay into redemption, tasting already the powers of the age to come, already in anticipation of the great anapausis [refreshment], the final resting place that is the full and blessed enjoyment of the world to come. (T. F. Torrance, ed. Robert T. Walker, “Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ,” 95-6)

Advertisement

25 Responses to ““Two-Ages” Signaled by the Cross”

  1. Heather says :

    Interesting you would post this. Craig and I were introduced to amillenialism not too long ago and the concept of two ages was pretty new to us with our dispensational backgrounds. The presentation we heard suggested that “the age to come” involves eternity and currently overlaps with the world system we see today that is steadily, and sometimes violently, passing away.

    I do see scriptural evidence for a two-age set up (with perhaps several “phases” in each) and was recently contemplating the two periods as being defined by the cross.

    Funny how different believers can be prompted to think about the same thing.

  2. Heather says :

    Oh, I guess I should clarify that we are not currently amillenial (or anything else, really) in our belief–but that is where we first were introduced to the concept of two ages.

    Like many things, our eschatological understanding apparently needed to be scrambled and put back together in a more accurate manner. Still waiting for more puzzle pieces…. :)

  3. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    Progressive Dispensationalists also hold to ‘two-ages’, which I am (PD); I think it is extremely difficult to read scripture and not see the reality of ‘two-ages’. I.e. the “now” and “not-yet”. So much of Paul’s though hinges on the reality of the Davidic kingdom being a reality now (i.e. II Cor 3; 5:17; etc). You should read “Progressive Dispensationalism” by Blaising and Bock, it will really help clarify what PD is all about; and how you must become one if your going to read scripture for all its worth ;-) .

  4. Heather says :

    I think you’re the first person I’ve ever heard coin the term “Progressive Dispensationalist”. We’ve looked at Amill. and Historic Premill (I think that’s what it’s called), several varieties of Dispensational, with a rapture occurring at different points and a brief look at a dominionist-postmill view. Along with some incredibly imaginative dispensational scenarios, I can see possible scriptural/historical support for several differing views. But nothing has really grabbed hold as to being “the” answer.

    Craig kind of put the search on hold in order to more fully focus on some other things he’s been learning and I feel the Lord has basically told me to quit reading books about eschatology because it was messing me up so badly. It really is interesting though, when a person latches onto a particular framework, it will direct how they read their Bibles and live their lives. Very interesting!

    I’m not against looking at your perspective but hesitate to jump into another book at this time.

    Would you mind giving a hint–basic outline or something–to give me a jumping off point? If it looks to be a worthwhile venture, and Craig and I ask Him, perhaps God will lift the book ban and let us explore a little more thoroughly.

  5. Heather says :

    Along with some incredibly imaginative dispensational scenarios, I can see possible scriptural/historical support for several differing views. But nothing has really grabbed hold as to being “the” answer.

    I meant “With the exception of some imaginative dispensational views…”

  6. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    PD has been around for years now, most, of my profs in bible college and seminary are PD; and I have been for the last 10yrs myself. I used to write on this stuff all the time; here is an old blog I used to run with an article highlighting the distinction between Classic Dispensationalism and Progressive:

    http://shalomjerusalem.blogspot.com/2005/09/discontinuity-between-classic.html

    There is really only a few classifications of dispy:

    1.) Classic Dispy

    2.) Revised (Ryrie’s approach)

    3.) Progressive Dispy

    4.) Ultra – Dispy (wingnuts ;-) ).

    I took a semester long class on dispyism (which included studying amil) during bible college; in fact my school’s heritage is well known for its dispyism (as my school Multnomah has direct ties to Dallas Theological Seminary [the hub of dispy thought]).

    Anyway, you’re right, this is more of an issue revolving around bib interpretation than just “end time scenarios.” It would be helpful for you to do research in this area (it would help you in your reading of the prophets for example ;-) ).

  7. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    Here is one more post describing classic/revised dispyism, just for more clarity on what distinguishes PD from this approach:

    http://shalomjerusalem.blogspot.com/2005/09/dispensationalism-dispensationalism-is.html

  8. Heather says :

    Those links are interesting, Bobby. Thanks.

    And thank you for clarifying the basic separations between dispensational thought.

    I think I’ve managed to get hold of several “wingnut” writings.

    And my Bible is a Ryrie’s, so it’s full of his notes. Some of his stuff makes sense but I don’t see much evidence for a “pre-trib rapture” of the church scenario. The reasoning that the word “church” is omitted from most of Revelation seems a little weak since “saints” is used of first century believers in the NT.

    What you appear to propose in the articles actually does make sense in light of some of the things I’ve thought as I’ve tried to sort through some of the prophetic writings. Craig keeps saying he can’t quite buy replacement theology because of what appear to be very literal promises that God made to national Israel. Of course, national Israel has no access to those blessings as long as the people continue to reject Christ…

    I’ll ask Craig to take a look and see what he says. Maybe the Lord wasn’t allowing us to feel comfy with the other frameworks because we were supposed to hold out til we were introduced to progressive?

    Have you noticed that there were approximately 2000 years from the birth of Jacob (Israel) until the birth of Christ? It’s been approximately 2000 years since the first advent and church history has roughly followed a similar historical pattern to Israelite history. Western Christianity has entered an era similar to the Pax Romana that the Jews of Jesus’ time experienced. Not trying to read too much into it. Just think it’s interesting.

  9. Myk Habets says :

    Bobby, am I reading this right – you are a Progressive Dispensationalist?! I thought you were Reformed brother?? What’s going on? :-) Intrigued…

  10. Bobby Grow says :

    Good, maybe this will be helpful for you guys!

    The 2000 yrs thing is interesting, and as you know many folks do read much into that (even some Jewish Rabbis).

    As far as Pre-Trib rapture it all revolves around how we see God’s wrath and the Day of the LORD. This is what divides a pretribber from a pre-wrather, from a midtribber and posttribber ;-) . I see God’s wrath and the Day of the Lord involving the whole 7 yrs Tribulation period (i.e. Jacob’s trouble). Also the idea of imminency is a huge part of the pretrib argument; as you read Paul’s writings esp. (and the Gospels for that matter) he speaks with an any moment perspective (or imminent)I Thess 4 and I Cor 15.

    Some folks call amillers replacement theology, in some cases this is true; and in other cases this is not. There are amillers who see a distinction between Israel and the Church in Rom 9–11 — like a PD does (one people of God, just different purposes within God’s unfolding plan of salvation) — they just don’t believe in a literal earthly 1000 yr reign of Christ (they see us in that right now).

    The biggest problem, for me, with Classic/Revised dispyism is that they posit two different peoples of God (and thus more than one New Covenant); which really presents an artificial reading of scripture.

  11. Bobby Grow says :

    Hey Myk,

    I’ve always been PD (well for about 10 yrs), hey didn’t you know that it was the Presbyterians who “invented” dispensationalism to begin with ;-) . . .

    Aren’t you historic premil? I don’t see much difference between PD and historic premil; well there is some hermeneutical stuff that maybe a little different (HP is more “covenantal” in orientation, but PD can be construed just as “covenantal” just in more biblical theological terms or LGH terms). Which btw I like to say the L in LGH is Literary vs. Literal, makes a huge difference in approach.

    Oh, and didn’t you know that Calvin was actually PD ;-) . . .

  12. Myk Habets says :

    Hmmm – but Dispensationalism – in whatever guise- is a system of theology with its own hermeneutic, rules for reading, history, etc, that is opposed to Reformed theology. That is why MacArthur is a hybrid between the two and that is why his theology is random, confused, and contradictory. I guess to take this further we would want to discuss the sine quo non of dispesnationalism, then that of PD, then that of Reformed theology and see where that gets us. But, either way, I think claiming to be PD and Reformed is incompatible – like claiming to be Arminian and Reformed, or Roman Catholic and Evangelcial, etc.

  13. Heather says :

    but Dispensationalism – in whatever guise- is a system of theology with its own hermeneutic, rules for reading, history, etc, that is opposed to Reformed theology.

    This is another reason I’ve had trouble latching onto the dispensational view. I don’t really care whether it lines up with Reformed theology, but the method of interpretation (whatever they’re using) seems inconsistent. I did read a book that demonstrates how historical events can adequately fulfill the prophecy of Revelation. Still not sure what to make of that, but it makes more sense to me that John’s vision was more of a panoramic view of the future rather than simply being a telescopic snapshot of the last 7 horrifying years.

    And I really am frustrated about what to make of national Israel. In Luke 13, Jesus said to Jerusalem “Your house is left to you desolate” which suggests to me that Israel is now just another nation–but He also said “until you say ‘blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” So, I suppose that could mean national revival at a future point. Or, it could mean that “all Israel” will be eventually saved in exactly the same manner as any other believer (through individual faith in Christ). And, when the “times of the Gentiles” have run their course, we can expect Christ to return for all of His recovered sheep.

  14. Heather says :

    I see God’s wrath and the Day of the Lord involving the whole 7 yrs Tribulation period (i.e. Jacob’s trouble). Also the idea of imminency is a huge part of the pretrib argument; as you read Paul’s writings esp. (and the Gospels for that matter) he speaks with an any moment perspective (or imminent)I Thess 4 and I Cor 15.

    Yes. I’ve read the “imminency” argument. Thing is, “imminent” only means “threatening, near or hanging over–appearing about to fall on (something)”. It doesn’t have to mean “pre-trib rapture”. Especially if the concept of a 7 year end of the world tribulation period is actually errant. The word tribulation is used of “everyday” trials in scripture. Life IS tribulation and involves the testing and refining of our faith. I’m suspecting you would know this well with your own health concerns (how you doing, btw?)

    On the other hand, historical events do seem to go in cycles. I suppose we could have had multiple isolated shadows of a final, condensed, 7 year tribulation.

    Concerning the imminent nature of Christ’s return, you could look at it this way: From the moment of conception, a baby’s birth is “imminent”. As soon as the test shows positive, most parents will have baby on the brain. The big event is hanging overhead for 9 months as names are being chosen, rooms rearranged etc. Depending on how easy the pregnancy and labor are, there can be plenty of trouble (even a Great Tribulation) before the baby finally arrives. Unless mom opts for drugs during labor, it’s going to really be unpleasant right toward the end. And, the only way out is through. Jesus even used labor terms when describing for His friends what were the signs of the “end of the age”.

    There are pre-tribbers who point to 1 Thessalonians and I have asked whether they have noted the order of events which is described in 2 Thessalonians 2. The order Paul appears to offer is that the appearing of Christ and gathering together of believers (v1) will not occur until AFTER the revealing of the “man of sin” or son of perdition (v3), which I’ve been told by dispensationalists is supposed to be “The Antichrist”. If the man of sin is THE Antichrist–( I guess this is said to be the beast of Revelation), then, according to Paul, Christians (not newly converted tribulation saints) will be here when that happens.

    What I know of historic premill–or even amill– makes the most sense to me but mostly, sifting through eschatological views has been really confusing.

  15. Bobby Grow says :

    Myk,

    I’ve never hidden that I’m PD, in fact I told you that in an email awhile ago. I would be interested to know what you know of PD — have you read Blaising and Bock’s book, or Robert Saucy? To say that Classic Dispyism is akin to PD is not quite right; there is a substantial difference.

  16. Heather says :

    Um. I realized my comments appeared to be an anti pretrib dispensational rant.

    Sorry about that.

    I was just thinking that if the progressive variation doesn’t adequately deal with the scriptures that appear to contradictthat view, I probably shouldn’t pursue that perspective to aggressively. Not that I’d complain if there is irrefutable evidence that points to a pre-trib rapture….

  17. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    What’s your alternative? You could go historic premil or amil or postmil; but the reality is is that each represents a particular system of interpretation. A good book you might want to check out is Stanley Grenz’s “Millennial Maze” (he ends up amil), he does a pretty good job presenting all of the approaches with their strengths and weaknesses.

    PD, as far as I’m concerned does a good job as it integrates elements of amil and premil perspective. Most classic dispies don’t consider it worthy of the Dispensational label since it sees a more continuous relationship between the biblical covenants (like amil); it sees “one people of God” (like amil) instead of two (like classic dispy); and its hermeneutic does not necessarily follow the sine qua non of classic dispyism which is so called “literalism.”

    The reason I can appreciated PD is because it grounds its interpretation in Christ and the Davidic covenant (which is similar to historic premil, amil, and postmil); yet it maintains the character of dispyism in the sense that it sees a functional distinction between Israel and the Church (per Rom 9–11), which is not different than what is called “Reformed Amillennialism” in this regard.

    As far as being able to claim to be Reformed, in a historic sense, the only ones able to claim this label are really postmillers (with a minority of amillers thrown in).

  18. Heather says :

    What’s your alternative? You could go historic premil or amil or postmil; but the reality is is that each represents a particular system of interpretation.

    That’s the rub. None of the prefab frameworks I’ve looked at seem to fully encompass what Scripture actually says. And, some of the extreme dispensational views and preterist/dominionist seem to lean heavily back into OT law and man’s responsibility to perform at a certain level in order for God’s plan to be accomplished. I think it has to do with the parts in Revelation that talk about “he who overcomes” and those who “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. ”

    The “literalism” of the dispensationalism I’ve come across doesn’t seem really consistent. A lot of them have no problem coughing up swarms of demon locusts and literally rebuilding Babylon (which, even in the OT, appears to merely symbolize Satan’s counterfeit kingdom).

    But, then there will be those who switch back and forth between literal and symbol and I don’t understand what sort of cues their using to get this done.

    I’m just messed up. One view claims that everything that was predicted in scripture has already happened and we are supposed to be militantly advancing Christianity across the globe.
    Some say that unfolding history has been fulfilling very nicely what was was predicted.
    Others say that the majority of both OT and NT prophecy still hasn’t been fulfilled. I’ve seen America pegged as Babylon and the prince of Wales is supposed to be the Antichrist. Others suspect our current leader of being Mr Evil. But no, the Catholic Church is the beast and the pope is the false prophet. Hold on! We have Jews who aren’t Jews (as in the letters to the 7 churches) who are represented as Harlot Babylon and Muslims as the demon locusts and the source of Antichrist.

    Most of the extreme weirdness seems to be centered in dispensational thinking, which is why I’m really cautious about looking into progressive, I guess.
    Well, that and what I’ve read about some Catholic priests forwarding both preterist and futurist views in order to distract people from viewing the pope as the antichrist.

    But if Progressive offers a viable alternative that can bridge the gaps I think I’m seeing in the other ideas, maybe it’s worth a look. Can it be adapted to a non-pre-trib understanding? ;)

    Maybe I just need to go play somewhere else. Seems as though I tend to make a serious pest of myself on other people’s sites when I have nothing to say on my own blog.

  19. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    There is “wierdness” on all sides (I think of the dominion or reconstructionist guys you mention). Just spend some time studying hermeneutics, pick up the book: “How To Read the Bible For All Its Worth,” by Douglas Stuart and Gordon Fee; this is a good primer on herm. and this will help you with the issue we are discussing.

    I’m not sure who you’ve read, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve read enough to make a judgement on what’s good and what’s not. You should read:

    Charles Ryrie’s: “Dispensationalism”

    Blaising and Bock’s: “Progressive Dispensationalism”

    Anothy Hoekema’s: “Bibe and the Future” (the amil approach)

    Kim Riddlebarger’s: “A Case for Amillennialism”

    Anything by George E. Ladd (the historic premil approach)

    Stanley Grenz’s: “Millennial Maze”

    Heather, at some point everything is “prefabbed,” but you don’t have to be prefabbed once you advocate for a position; every single “system” is a continuum of belief, so if you talk to one amiller and one PD’r they might sound very similar in their interpretive approach; or if you talk to a classic dispy and another one, they might sound very different in how they understand the New Covenant. It’s a matter of understanding the positions, and then nuancing or emphasizing where you think scripture leads (i.e. just because someone identifies as something doesn’t mean they are slavishly bound to that “system”, per se).

  20. Heather says :

    Thanks for the advice Bobby. I’ll see if I can find a copy of the hermeneutics book

    it doesn’t sound like you’ve read enough to make a judgment on what’s good and what’s not.

    I don’t recall all I’ve read or listened to, either. We do have a theology handbook that I consult fairly regularly when I realize that I’m interacting with someone who holds to a particular teaching. It includes a chart of the different views and overview of the basic beliefs. This has helped me make a generalized comparison between the basic ideas. My valuation was not between “good” and “bad”, though, but rather “confusing” and “clear”. What I’d like most is to have an understanding that is Biblically sound.

    Heather, at some point everything is “prefabbed,but you don’t have to be prefabbed once you advocate for a position;”
    Yes, I can accept that. I have a habit of altering recipes once I understand the basic formula. It’s possible to end up with a really good chocolate cake even though several original ingredients have been tweaked. Sometimes the improved version is much better.

    There are aspects of each system that I can see as being Scripturally relevant. My tendency is to want to see where the similarities are and find a peaceful point of co-existence. On some points, I know that is impossible, though.

    Ah well. Thanks for being patient. I’ll go poke around on Amazon to see if I can find a copy of that first book you mentioned.

  21. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    Good, I’m glad you have an overview book; but it won’t suffice for actually reading from the “horses’ mouth” so to speak.

    I’m glad the prefabbed point made sense; chocolate cake sounds good, given our diet changes I can’t really eat that right now though :-( .

    Yeah, I think you would really benefit from that book from Fee and Stuart; it’s relatively cheap too!

  22. Heather says :

    Well, I wasn’t going to bother you any more about this but after looking at the reviews of the hermeneutics book, I’m balking a bit. Because I’m weird, I usually start with the bad reviews and there are a couple (I took the KJV-only plus prayer one with a grain of salt) that cause me to be a bit concerned that I’d just get myself in trouble.

    The non-favorable reviews are here, if you’re interested. http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/product-reviews/0310246040/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

    One reviewer recommended “Grasping God’s Word” by Duvall and Hays as an alternative.

    Know anything about that one?

    The MacArthurite pastor of our previous church was really into good hermeneutics and exegetical preaching and whatnot. But there still seemed to be something “missing” there.

    Jesus did say that all of Scripture is about Him. I’ve learned to look for Him when I read and although my understanding is hardly perfect–or even scholarly–have been amazed at how He’s made Himself known over the past several months.

    Maybe, for now, I need to just continue to read my Bible and ask the Lord to show me how to live one day at a time rather than try to figure out everything at once.

    Yeah. Considering cancer’s apparent affinity for sugar, I expect you aren’t eating much dessert these days. We really don’t need it either. There’s plenty of good, wholesome food around. Wonder why junk food is so appealing, anyway?

  23. Bobby Grow says :

    Heather,

    I don’t find that reviewer helpful at all. All he does is demonstrate that he disagrees with certain interpretive decisions that Fee makes; there is really nothing “critical”, in my view, about the reviewer’s points.

    But if this book and review makes you timid how about another recommendation; even a better book (don’t know why I didn’t mention it first), it is a book on bib interp written by a former prof and mentor of mine, Ray Lubeck (I was his TA) — in fact my name is in the book ;-) (in the acknowledgements), I had the privilege of being able to proofread the book (amongst others). The book is called:

    Read the Bible for a Change: A Follower’s Guide to Reading and Responding to the Bible and here’s the link: http://www.amazon.com/Read-Bible-Change-Followers-Responding/dp/1932805362/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267251009&sr=1-1

    All the reviews are favorable, and you’ll find this book very “Spirit-sensitive,” very clear and I think something you should really read, Heather. I think getting your hands around some “objective” principles of interpretation will help you in many ways (i.e. even dealing with depression, it did me). You don’t need to figure out everything at once, but you need to start somewhere :-) . . . and Lubeck’s book is somewhere you need to start, seriously!

  24. Heather says :

    Okay, Bobby.

    The book by Mr. Lubeck looks to be less scary than the other one. I’ll ask Craig if he’s interested in investing in a copy.

    I’ve often thought that being able to better understand context, target audience and culture would make personal application much easier. Maybe this will help.

    I really appreciate that you’ve taken the time to point me in a direction. Take care!

  25. Bobby Grow says :

    Good, Heather,

    I hope you guys invest in Lubeck’s book, I think you’ll be encouraged by it.